sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Labour fiscal plan includes $20bn spending boost, $10bn more in revenue over next four years while keeping Crown expenses steady and repaying debt; Gives itself $10bn for campaign policies

Labour fiscal plan includes $20bn spending boost, $10bn more in revenue over next four years while keeping Crown expenses steady and repaying debt; Gives itself $10bn for campaign policies

By Alex Tarrant

Labour has promised to spend $3bn to $7bn a year more than National through 2022 boosting health, education and social welfare budgets, while collecting up to $2.5bn a year in extra revenue by reversing tax threshold changes, implementing a 'Google Tax' on multinationals, extending the bright line test and getting rid of negative gearing allowances.

Releasing high-level fiscal projections for the next four years, Labour argued the extra spending would be done responsibly, fitting with its promise to reduce net government debt to 20% of GDP within five years and keeping government spending as a proportion of GDP below 30%. The projections imply Labour would continue to run surpluses through the period.

The numbers are not an exact science - the party only has one professional economist on the payroll versus the army over at Treasury - and rely on Budget 2017 growth projections. But Labour argues the exercise is more credible than before previous elections.

Leader Andrew Little said Labour's plan meant there was a clear choice for voters this election: "National’s tax cut trickle-down economics or Labour’s plan that will provide much more for the services Kiwis need and want prioritised." Read Alex Tarrant's preview of the announcement here, including how Labour was seeking to reposition itself in the centre away from National.

“Under Labour’s Fiscal Plan we will deliver big investments in the services we all need and care about, invest in our long term future and meet the expectation from New Zealanders that we will do so in a prudent and effective way," Little said. “This will be achieved because we have different priorities than National. We are committed to rejecting National’s election year tax cuts that will hand $400 million to the top 10% of income earners."

The spending projections kick in from mid-2018 and run from 2018/19 to 2021/22. Also included are a couple of spending commitments for the 2017/18 year, including KiwiBuild and Super Fund injections. 

Health will receive an extra $7.9bn, Education $3.9bn and Social Security and Welfare $5.4bn under the plans, leader Andrew Little and finance spokesman Grant Robertson said Wednesday. All up over the four years, Labour is envisaging spending nearly $20bn more than Budget 2017 projections.

The party has given itself nearly $10bn of that as a spending allowance for unannounced policies - set to be released during the campaign for the September 23 general election.

Additional capital spending commitments arising from Labour's promise to restart Super Fund contributions from 2017/18 and the initial $2bn KiwiBuild injection that year will cost an extra $5bn, the party's fiscal policy document shows.

On the revenue side, Labour says reversing Budget 2017 tax threshold changes, extending the bright line test from two to five years, removing negative gearing allowances, and boosting collection of tax from multinationals (see Jenee Tibshraeny's article on whether that's possible here) will allow it to raise an additional $9.7bn over the next four years.

Labour said the plan should allow it to keep core Crown expenses as a proportion of GDP between 28 and 29% of GDP in each of the next four years. The government operating balance excluding gains and losses (OBEGAL) will sit between 1.2% and 2.2% of GDP over that time. Core Crown net debt is forecast to fall from 23.5% to 20.0% of GDP in 2022.

The slight delay in returning net debt to 20% of GDP could mean an extra $880m in finance costs over the four years, Labour's policy document shows. The party said economic consultancy BERL had taken a look at the plan. 

“Labour’s Fiscal Plan prioritises new investment in housing, health, education, and infrastructure. Our plan will boost the incomes for low and middle income families, create opportunities for our young people, and improve the lives of all," Little said.

“Importantly, Labour will restore contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to help keep the age of Super at 65. Under Labour’s plan, we’ll double the existing size of the current fund to around $63 billion by 2022," he said.

“We can continue to run surpluses and pay down debt because, unlike National, we do not believe a tax cut can be justified at this time. It is simply not credible for the Government to say that a thousand dollar tax cut for Bill English and me should be a priority over ensuring New Zealanders have homes to live in, modern schools, and world-class healthcare when they need it."

Here is the full document:

PDF iconLabour Fiscal Plan 2017.pdf



We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.



Well if the property bubble bursting like it is and likely to cause a wider economic contraction, then there will be an acute need for government to increase consumption to keep us afloat.

@Scarfie , that's an interesting observation , it pre-supposes an ongoing boom with tax revenues continuing at their present levels .

But a downturn leads to less tax collection and a need to boost the economy through an increase in Government spending

Last financial year there was 28 Billion (of new debt money) spent into the economy (plus a large inwards "investment" into real estate). If loan growth slowed to equal repayments that is a yawning chasm to make up - approximately equal to the total social security and welfare spend or health and education combined.
Remove that 28 Billion (12% GDP) and you will pretty soon see what this economy is made of.


I really do wonder about the wisdom of their strategists. To have a policy to reverse out the tax threshold changes. Based on inflation they should have changed ages ago anyway. Income tax thresholds are a tax on labour, for goodness sake - surely if they want to raise more money, the Labour Party way would be to tax CAPITAL?

They've lost their way.

With cap gains looking less likely on ppty and inflation dead , that horse has probably bolted. But tax hikes and the ring fencing of tax losses (which I suspect will be increasing) that they propose will certainly smack some who have been wriggling out of their dues.

you can tax capital without a capital gains tax.

I'm in favour of the first, but not the second.

yes true... silly me. TOP party policy and I believe also used to an extent by our welfare system on non performing assets when income testing.

"We will convene a tax working group" is a roundabout way of having a capital gains tax policy. Labour should just show some leadership and just announce it.

@Kate its called inflation linked BRACKET CREEP .

Google it .

If you dont adjust for Bracket Creep , everyone has less disposable income ........... not good

That's what she said.

@Boatman - I know - THAT WAS MY POINT.

Read it.

If you don't, everyone will think you an a....... not good.

If you don't address the housing crises everyone has less disposable income. Not good

If you read the PDF you will see plans afoot to tax assets/wealth

Taxing assets is very hard to accomplish particularly where it generates no income , like my yacht for example , which while valuable, is actually a liability in terms of ongoing costs .

don't worry, the depeciation and maintenance fees may be tax exempt, wonder if you can carry losses forward, as my little yacht was very valuable, now not really.
Don't tell Andrew about marina berths though

It's an absolute doddle to apply a capital tax to your yacht, as there is an online register of vessels, just like cars and just like properties. The fact that you choose to invest your capital in a liability is not the CCT taxman's concern. Rent it out as a Bookabach - make a decent rate of return - and Mr CCT taxman (Morgan) won't bother you :-).

I did look at it - in particular the chart on page 13 titled, "Additional Revenue". The lion's share by far relates to what they refer to as "reversing National's tax cuts" ... and they plan to adhere to this "reversing" over their entire first term. Which means we'll have a whole lot more inflation and no adjustment for bracket creep.

Really it's just same 'ol, same 'ol strategy as far as I can tell. That being, collect the lion's share of taxes from the PAYE earners of this nation. Very glad to see ring-fencing of losses on rental properties and the extra tax that will be collected as a result of that, but it's peanuts.

I don't see anything in that regarding a tax on capital. Have I missed it?

Dynamics change, in hindsight a CGT might have mitigated a lot of damage to society that occurred over the last 8 years, but the same might not be true in the future, and it was politically unpalatable anyway. It’s more pragmatic to do what Labour is doing and invest in infrastructure, increase home ownership rates, and reduce inequality with targeted policies.

Sure but with what source for the extra money/tax needed? That's my point. And I agree, CGT is no good because there are not always gains, but there is always capital. And in particular, there is always land as capital. Personally, I'd far prefer just a nice, simple land value tax. Easy to administer - unavoidable - incorruptible.

Yes, I agree. I would prefer to see a land value tax and a reduction in income tax.

spend like it won't see the sun rise

Yes and just give it to the poor who will likely make poor choices when spending money that they don't have to work for

Yeah, back in my day pensioners weren't off on overseas trips every year. Don't know what sort of message we're sending, just giving out money to old people willy-nilly. Harrumph!

not to mention their new hips, knees, heart ops, cancer treatments ... all seen as appropriate spending despite it all being on the never to be paid credit card. But the debt system says we must bring forward MORE consumption now ... which is what shonkeys brighter future was really about
"We are stealing from our own future and from generations unborn to stay solvent"

All to keep the Boatman's afloat.

ham n eggs,

"not to mention their new hips,knees,heart ops,cancer treatments". Quite right,it is a shameful waste of scarce resources giving health care to the elderly. Surely it would be much better from a purely financial standpoint to encourage us older folk to 'shuffle off this mortal coil' and not be a burden to society.
I read the link. Pre oil,there were no democracies. Really? Where does the word come from? Ancient Greece perhaps? Pre oil,did Britain and America not have parliamentary democracy? If tht's your main source of information,no wonder you put up the posts you do.

Looking at the Labour PDF, it seems that the majority of the money for the promises comes from "reversing National's tax cuts"
Is this code for tax increases? as the "gains" appear pretty steep...

See " We will establish a tax working group IN GOVERNMENT with a mandate to get a better balance between how we tax ASSETS, WEALTH, income and consumption"
Wonder if Gareth Morgan will be on the working group, probably not as he is mainly into property tax, not taxation of his considerable wealth.

A tax working group... yeah right.

Tax is not a bipartisan type matter.

I would expect a Labour government to come down in favour of labour/workers, and look to tax accumulated capital (i.e., wealth) .... particularly in a country like NZ that has no CGT, no inheritance tax, no land value tax, no financial transaction tax, no means testing of super benefits, etc. etc.

And I wouldn't expect them to need a tax working group to tell them how to do it.

TOP becomes more viable to the traditional Labour voter by the day.

Wow, Labour is going to give us free money! I'll vote for them!

Sorry to disappoint , but its simply not going to happen .

There is no such thing as free money , if you get a handout, it comes from someone else , ie its at someone else's cost , and that someone else is remarkably adept at side-stepping the cost over time. They spend time and resources of getting their affairs in order to simply pay less tax , which is not illegal.

Sarcasm; the use of irony to mock or convey contempt

We should stop being distracted by policies and just vote based on the alleged strength of character, and charisma, of the Party leader. Policies may change the world, but a nice smile and not to threatening demeanour will help us all sleep better at night.

So its a choice between Little and English ?

Neither of these two have any personality or charisma whatsoever

That's why they desperately don't want Winston in the leadership debates. Without him, it's a zero sum charisma game...but with him there, he might just wipe the floor with them.

I agree, but only because the crown must be worn by the leader of the largest party. On no account should it go to the most qualified, most capable, or most empathetic. We must also forget about the doctrine of primus inter pares, and grant an almost presidential status to someone who is little more than chief lickspittle for the unelected party membership.

LOL - this is the country where a worm shot Peter Dunne to new heights of charismatic fame.

Labour, I am interested in your economic policies please.

How do you propose to keep NZ's economy afloat by not importing excessive amount of low skill workers, not putting more cows on land, and not attracting more tourists until enough infrastructure is built?

Easy, you don't need them to tell you how to achieve that.

1. By not importing low skilled workers, we employ locals on higher wages. As a result - more income tax is paid and less people are unemployed or under-employed. Win-win both workers and government.

2. By reducing cow numbers we cut our GHG emissions significantly, thus reducing our Kyoto commitment costs and making our environment more attractive to tourists. Win-win both the environment and taxpayers.

3. We will attract more tourists because having reduced our cow numbers, and having employed locals in our hospitality industry, we can live up to our "100% Pure New Zealand" brand image. Few tourists come here to drink milk and take pictures of pivot irrigation systems. Win-win both the tourists and the infrastructure budgets.

Agree Kate - Nationals policy appears to have been to kill the goose to get the golden egg.

What the prevaricators and swinging voters and one-eyed do not appreciate is the amount of postponed pain that National have deposited in the pain-bank-account to be withdrawn sometime in the near future

Who do you reckon the swingers are on here? Some racy house parties on Vicky Ave, perhaps?

DGZ, you having some rather good times with the neighbours there?

Swinging Voters - have amended it from swingers - don't want people nailing themselves by revelealing their proclivities

I think the nomenclature is slightly different for people nailing themselves, anyway.

Wow ............ talk about Tax and Spend .......... this is one sure-fire way to stop all housing investment in its tracks .

I hope Housing New Zealand can cope with demand when private investors leave the market and cease providing rental stock .

And some of these proposals will irritate middle income New Zealanders ( who are the types who bother to vote)

In essence they propose to take more from middle New Zealand and increase social welfare :-

- Adjust thresholds to make us pay more tax ( in other words fiddle with the tax tables )
- Disallow deductions for losses on investment properties ( I guess this will need to be phased out and its a good thing )
- Extend Brightline to 5 years , so what happens if you lose your job or become disabled and are forced to sell your home ?........ Or you are transferred to another town ?

Taxing Multinationals is good , but just how do they plan to do this given they are often not domiciled here , let alone even have a physical presence ?


Here we go again. Sales by private investors exiting the market will lose housing stock.
Pray, where will the buyers come from? Boatman, maybe, just maybe, a few houses may be sold to ex-renters.

Of course they will be sold to ex-renters in some cases , and that would be a good outcome , but many of them will be sold to foreign speculators who dont even care about yield when they are using funds costing 1% or laundering money

The problem with my children is they either dont earn enough to qualify for a Mortgage or simply dont have the 20% deposit of $150,000 to buy a cold leaky run -down hovel in West Auckland


Good news then, Labour have already thought of this and one of their policies is to ban foreign speculators:

'Ban foreign speculators from buying existing homes

Labour will ban foreign speculators from buying existing New Zealand homes. This will remove from the market foreign speculators who are pushing prices out of reach of first home buyers.'

Ever heard of "Fronting"

Its where a foreigner ( for a fee) uses a local individual domiciled here or a nominee Company to run their affairs


Yes, I have, but I think a ban with suitable penalties and policing would discourage all but the most determined. A measure doesn't have to be 100% effective to be worth doing, and it's certainly more than National are proposing in this area.

Fair comment

Welcome home loans allow you to get a loan with a 10% deposit if I'm not mistaken.

Sure 10% is good , but just how does a teacher save $ 75,000 for said damp cold hovel in West Auckland ?

Before adding any units a trained teacher on step 10 makes $78,000 per year ( degree + teaching diploma let's you start at step 3 or 5, you advance 1 step per year). If you save 20,000 of that per year by dumping it into KiwiSaver then you should have enough for your deposit in about 3 years ( factoring in compound gains at 10% pa and the $5,000 first home buyer grant. Gains based on Milford aggressive KiwiSaver)

you got the deposit then what?

lets say on average a teacher makes 75k (not take home pay)

675k at 5% for 30 years mortgage payments is 80% of your weekly take home pay for thirty years.

oh and rising interest rates.

God forbid u turn the lights on at night or attempt to eat something other than baked beans on toast seven days a week.

That is for an individual buying a median 3 bedroom place, not lower a quartile 1 or 2 bedroom house which is what most single first home buyers are likely looking for (at hobsonville I believe 2 bedroom brand new axis series houses go for about $540,000). If a couple (both teachers on $75,000) were to buy that 3 bedroom place they would have their deposit in under 2 years and pay less than 40% of their income in mortgage payments. If they bought an Axis home it would take less than a year to save the deposit ($54,000 - $20,000 new build first home buyer subsidy = $34,000) and at 5.00% interest over 30 years it would take 27.9% of their take home pay ( based on and asb's online mortgage calculator )

When the investors sell up as you say, the teacher won't need a $75K deposit for a hovel in WA. I can just about guarantee you that.

sales by investors is nto an issue - after all they will either go to other investors, FHB's or social landlords - the problem will be investors pulling out of new builds - as without their finance and pre build sales many new developments simply wont happen - already signs of this in Auckland with a number of schemes being put on hold or collapsing - and teh conversion of consents to actual builds falling

Labour doesn't want you to be successful. No point in studying to be a doctor, engineer or any other high earning profession. Labour will just steal your money from you.

Yes qualify as an engineer and bugger off to Australia which rewards your skills and does not treat you like some kind of social outcast because of your ability to earn good money

Actually been considering Singapore, I hear that because they have no natural resources to speak of they value human resource very highly especially in the technology sector!

Yeah, great mate, Go for it

Just a pipe dream at this point, will give more serious thought to it based on the election results. Could be worth doing the OE thing whilst NZ has its recession. The added bonus of higher (SGD) wages to help me buy more property whilst the NZ market is cool is the cherry on top!

This is as marvelous an argument as arguing National doesn't want you to be successful demonstrated by the fact they're pushing houses out of your reach while driving down wages at the same time, so you can be a renter and wage-slave for life.

Given that IRD has just announced a staff cut of anything up to 4,000 heads, I hope Labour have a plan to manage this complicated tax money go round they are proposing

The staff I assume are being cut because of the new software? In which case, the software will be expected to make the task of managing our myriad taxes easier.

More automation would not be a surprising reason for the change.

there you go, one government will pay redundancy payments, the next will hire some back..
why not just retrain and redeploy them into investigation units

I have posted the following this morning before all this BS details came out:
" All good, The burning question is can we trust them? what will they do if their other immigration, minimum wage and superfund contribution ... etc etc depressed the economy ?? .... what guarantee could they provide that they won't tax the hell of property and higher income - the Greens and WP will not settle only for the charms of Mr. Little and his team and allow him to "lead" free handed .... WP alone has tons of charm of his own ...!! and a much tougher negotiator than Mr. Little realises...
What will happen when that extra $3-$8B would not eventuate or evaporated next year simply because of their assumption of power which could be a major cause of depression itself ? ...what will happen if there was another "minor" earthquake somewhere? .... By pushing debt repayments means they will borrow more to save face and satisfy the Co partners ...with all their own conflicting policies - a very dangerous mix indeed ...
The whole thing doesn't add up !! -- too many conflicts and premature policies which can be negated anytime .... not sure at all if they can be collectively trusted ... even if they promise Jupiter !! "

So, when the devil in the details was revealed ( just like any labour policy) one can Clearly see through them as it is surely be based on assumptions, lies, and deception !...

They are going to TAX the hell of every earner and any asset that they can possibly find and everyone can now bet his bottom dollar that CG will be on the menu in their first Term....
this article says "The numbers are not an exact science - the party only has one professional economist on the payroll versus the army over at Treasury - and rely on Budget 2017 growth projections. But Labour argues the exercise is more credible than before previous elections." ... So a one and a half man's scribbles and wish list of the trade Unions become the economic plan for the next 5 years based on budget 2017 !!-

As I suspected and said before, Labour did smell the money lately and have found themselves in the bottom of the polls with outdated principles and a rusty vision - hence a radicle "any burger" policy to ignite the ill informed and their cheerleaders and those who would welcome an extra 6 back or a fag anytime of the day!!
Ohh, Everyone should wish them Good Luck in chasing the multi corp and the Banks etc... they expect us to believe that they can like Ireland did !! ( show us the money)

Every party on the left have announced that they are nothing but a bunch of thieves promising openly to steal from the hardworking people who pay most of the tax intake and punish their current and future earnings to fulfil their ego and just get elected,... By splashing that money around ... they will EVENTUALLY make the poor poorer and in constant need for them - EASY money is addictive like any toxic drug .... BRIBE now has new dimensions, and preying on people's sentiments using anything from homelessness, inequality, health, education, suicide rates, housing, wages, you name it ... dramatically portraying the country in a poor state while it is thriving and fired on all cylinders - That is the real SHAME.

They cannot be trusted at all ...Most NZers are much smarter than they think.
Voting for Labour or Green will transform NZ into a banana republic in 3 years and will need more than a further 9 years to clean the mess up after they are gone !!...

"EASY money is addictive like any toxic drug". That's ironic considering you're a property "investor". Oh and by the way the EU made Google pay, Irish Govt didn't want them to, in fact they wanted to appeal against it -

So you think that property investors get easy money - Now you are disappointing me!!

We are not the EU ... not even a fraction of their power ... and they might get their money in few decades ...


A decent-ish riposte, but yes for the main part I do - tax dodges, use of debt to get more debt, no capital gains, pretty much every single possible hand out, with relatively little downside.

The whole rock star economy is a house of cards, both literally and metaphorically. The great stewards of the economy National have sold everything of value, raised national debt manifold, more homeless, more poverty, more inequality, more crime, household debt is astronomical, especially amongst the over 55s (something to do with investment in property I'd imagine).

Should the bubble burst there's going to be a whole load of National voters desperately needing welfare support into their old age (which again will be a painful irony), someone else has put the link in which covers it better than me, but, it's very much take today and pay for it tomorrow. I don't want my kids to pay for Boomer's and my generation's recklessness, so let's get a lid on it before it gets way out of control, if it isn't already.

With all due respect to your views, you really over simplify things you see and I am sure this might improve if you dig deep in every subject you mentioned. you might be a bit surprised because thing do not always are as simple as they look.
Just one example: The Boomers were not born yesterday! ... claiming that generation X and the millennials will pay for their welfare ( retirement) is utterly Stupid let alone disrespectful to the same people who worked and paid taxes all their lives to help raise the same people who will support them when they can't, ... just like the millennials grand sons will need to support them when they get old in 40-50 years.... Just because the Boomers have done well for themselves ( predominantly through hard work in a different time and different economy) that does not make them evil or a burden on society just like any other beneficiary ... and should be treated like extra baggage now !!

The fact that the lefties want to turn a prosperous country into a Nana & a Nanny State does not change these facts of life.

Let's not lose respect of the very people who helped build our modern NZ that we know today. Respect ( if any) is all that is left in this political incorrectness nonsense and mayhem !!

With all due respect, and without wanting to turn this into an inter-generational argument, the Boomers have done some wonderful things (making me is probably the pinnacle of human achievement), they have also been exceptionally fortunate as you semi-alluded to in your post.

When you talk of over-simplifying, creating straw man arguments, lefties want to do "x,y.z", "if we don't vote National we'll turn into Venezuela", "become a banana republic" and other such statements is a gross over-simplification of a position, without any merit either, there doesn't appear to be any shades of grey in your black and white view of the world. There are many nuances between position A and position Z.

Have boomers done some wonderful things? I think their biggest claim to fame is the financialization of the world economy.

We (as I'm of the boomer generation) are not the folks who fought world wars; built our rail lines with pick and shovel; or toiled on treacherous hillsides to electrify the nation.

Far from it. Those of us that made good money, did so largely in the FIRE sector. Take our past PM, as a shining example.

Sure, there are baby boomers who grew up in hard times, but those hard times were padded with real safety nets and serious social/educational assistance by the state. Take our past PM as a shining example, again!

And many of us, both the advantaged and the less advantaged, appreciated the egalitarian nature of New Zealand society - and seriously mourn that loss.

We are not all property speculators, and those of us who are, ought to see ourselves for what we are and how we made our way in society - and now be prepared to share that accumulated capital wealth with the next generation.

Hugo Chavez of Aotearoa

Funny you should say "if we don't vote National we'll turn into Venezuela"

Earlier today as I was reading the accolades being passed out to John Key I kept thinking of JK as the Hugo Chavez of Aotearoa - Chavez was the clown of Venezuela - he waved and spoke the words everyone wanted to hear - but now, today, after he has passed on the place is broke - they find he had spent everyone's inheritance including those generations still to come

Oh yes indeedy - property profits have been the easiest money ever made

Eco Bird did you get an email from Vote Compass regarding a survey?
"The 2017 New Zealand General Election campaign will formally get underway next month. 1 NEWS has asked the team of political scientists responsible for Vote Compass to revive the initiative for the upcoming election. In order to ensure that this edition of Vote Compass reflects the priorities of New Zealanders, we are reaching out to you as a past participant of Vote Compass and asking you to complete a brief survey that will help us determine which issues should be included in this iteration of the application. If you have 10 minutes to spare sometime over the next few days, please consider providing your input into the design of Vote Compass New Zealand by participating in this survey."

No I didn't

It's ok just let me know if you want me to feedback anything that you think is important for this election and I will put it in ;-)

:) thanks ... I am not a political scientist, just an observer with some common sense.

Voltaire - 'Common Sense is not so common."

Rene Descartes - “Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.”

Agreed, but you get my drift

BTW, that Det Metz german place in Kohi was superb - had dinner there last night

Thank you. Yes I have been there before and will definitely go again! Yumm

Carinthia in Glendowie is better.


Eco Bird - We all know how much of a National "fan boy" you are so will treat your tirade with a grain of salt.

Riddle me this – From the point of view of someone who once lived in NZ and earned close to 100K. What the hell is the point of a few thousand dollars tax cuts to me when I have to pay over 1 million dollars extra for a house because National’s busy rolling out the red carpet for wealthy Chinese to buy the same houses that I want to buy!

I’d happily vote labour thanks and pay a few thousand extra in tax, have a better society, and pay less for a house! My life would be better with Labour in power.

Hate to burst your bubble there Pat. They're all the same; same BS packaged up differently. Labour was on the throne during the 2007 housing bubble. Only real difference is Nat don't believe in free handouts.

Except of course they do, for example allowing property investors to negatively gear property to save paying income tax. $40m a year to the poor starving oil companies, even the Taxpayer's Union that bastion of Socialism is writing about it (I think the that lot are lunatics by the way)

Er no. My rentals are effectively businesses providing a service- lodging to my tenants. Any loss I make is a cost of running that business, and running a business is working and contributing something to this country. Just like other small businesses, the government provides tax relief for expenses in recognition to the contribution you are making. For the record investors don't just wake up with money to invest, most work to get there... big difference to receiving a government sponsored cash flow for diddly squat.

haha. Conveniently not mentioning the profitable sale of the property there propertyminx. Not fooling anybody.

With all due respect, a bit of a dumb comment. If I had a small business that was profitable due to high demand, I'd be able to sell it for a profit too. This is not endemic to real estate

Sad thing is, you actually believe that.

Edit - that was a bit harsh, landlords do in some circumstances play a good role - students, new entrants to the country etc.. The pendulum has swung too far though, housing the poor should be the job of the Govt for example, not a way to rinse more money from taxpayers.

True... it has gone a little too far. I'd much rather property be held by Kiwis than off shore speccies to be fair

Mate, negative gearing existed ages ago - Labour didnt stop it last time they were at the wheel for 9 years they are not the angles that you think they are .

Hit a bit of a nerve there didn't I?

Anyway commentary on the other corporate welfare examples I gave? Or do you just want to defend the ones that help you?

I find that interesting in terms of savings. In 2007/2008 a million dollars in a 12 month TD would have returned around $78,000 gross pa. Today's rate for 12 months is worth $17,000 pa. What can be used to explain that during this housing bubble?

It just means that the value of money has gone down. Too many people measure the value of commodities relative to money as though that were the whole story whilst conviniently forgetting that money is constantly devaluing!

Well, excellent Fat pat, good on you - you vote how you see fit man - and if that fits your lifestyle then GREAT .... just ignore everyone else .... we just have to agree to disagree sometimes - regardless of what you know or don't about me coz that is beside the points I am making .... which is mainly this:

It is Unethical and Shameful to move the Goal posts every time you find out that some of the people have done better than others by working harder and smarter than those who did not or could not ... If you want to HELP those who missed out you have to a smart poly with a vision - not a Robin Hood, AND you dont do that by slowing down the front runners so the others can catch up - you dont stop the game and redistribute wealth - that is Stupid and Unfair foul play .... when these sort of policies are implemented we eventually become a Banana Republic ( where fraud is justified) and no one will play the game fairly or have regard for the law as long as the referees are so Sentimental and Doggy. So we all owe to ourselves to keep the society Honest.

The chinese are part of the housing story , not all of it - some people like yourself on 100K+ failed to see the benefit of saving money in Banks or shares -- with so little interest hardly covering inflation, so a lot jumped on the property market here, in Aus, in Canada, and almost everywhere in the mid of speculation frenzy , so did mom & pop who own their own home and a sizable nest egg ... Unlike charity donations, Taxing is not voluntary, it is forced upon people by laws ... let me see how would you react if any charitable organisation forces you to pay for the poor or homeless on top of what is fair to contribute or you wish to donate !!

So regardless of whom we like or vote for , we need to be mindful of the big picture and prevent this kind of destruction from happening to us. this is not about Red, Blue or Green ... it is about moral issues and fairness in the rule of law.
In my personal view , such policies equate to day time robbery !

It is also moral to prevent a self-confessed fraudster from becoming an MP or minister or the crown - What message does that send out to the world and to our young ones ??

One last thing as food for thought, to avoid us as a nation from blaming each other !!
how come that inequality has become an international phenomena in almost every country in the world at the same time ( apart from those who can print money out of thin air or extract it endlessly from under the ground ) ??... I suggest that you contemplate a huge vacuum machine in the hands of very few first creating a huge financial problem and getting everyone sucked into it with toxic loans and derivatives etc ... and almost losing their shirts even those who had nothing to do with it , then manipulate the monetary system and interest rates to provide a smooth landing while making sure that the middle class and small wealth completely lost their clothes and stir the remaining of their money into the only two easily confiscated asset classes which can be manipulated and at some stage vacuumed away too { Property and Shares}....isn't this what happened in almost the whole world since 2007 regardless of parties, ideology and governments ?? ... how come that the middle class is almost wiped out almost everywhere you look...??
Point in case, local governments (despite all good intentions) will be forced to get in line and get the ducts in a row - while the big vacuum machine is at work with minimum interruption... so good luck to Mr, Little and Mr. WP in challenging the big boys.

there is more to this if you wanted to enjoy this conspiracy theory lol !! BTW conspiracy doesn't mean it is not true !! :)

You see wars and conflict every where ..we are lucky to only possibly losing our shirts - some aren't even that lucky and are daily losing their money and their lives!!

Your last food for thought almost makes you sound left wing, good on you, the beauty of democracy is that you can change it. Those ripples are happening Corbyn, Sanders, Mechelon (firebrand socialist of France, pushed the front 2 runners close) - they're the old guard but their message resonates with people now.

Revolution happens when the middle class are impinged - Bolshevik, French, Cuba, even the peasant's revolt was led by folk who technically were middle-class. Democracy has hopefully stopped the need for violent revolution, so voting for change is your civic duty - vote National out, you know you want to! :)

Yeah, that last food for thought demonstrates understanding, but the lesson Eco-bird seems to have taken from it (I suspect) is: I'm now into dog-eat-dog too.

Sad that, as there is so much more positivity and promise in seeking change.

Like the positivity and promise one has in believing in Santa Claus.

Two months to election time and barely 5% of the population think he should be PM. How on earth does he even get air time let alone expect to lead the country?

Labour please turf him out now because you are about to suffer your biggest defeat in history. A defeat from which you will never recover.

Maybe if people looked at policies on offer instead of indulging in the fashionable leftie/labour./Little bashing things might be a bit different. This is not a presidential race although if there is a legacy that Key has left it might be turning NZ elections into just that. Amazing how Labour's policy of raising the super age went down like a cup of cold sick, but there is barely a murmur now that National is picking up and running with it. Personally, I just think people are going to bash Labour regardless because somehow or other it is what the "cool kids" do.

Mate , its 5% approval not 50% ... the guy has no show if he becomes the PM ... People react to a Leader not a textbook - all his tough intimidating looks will not make him one .... let's get real a bit !!

*cough* Jeremy Corbyn *cough* -42 approval rating. I'm not enamoured by Little in anyway, but let's not give too much sway to approval ratings.

Winston Peters has charisma, James Shaw's got a fair bit, Metiria speaks well. Bill is Gordon Brown to John Key's Tony Blair.

Haha, is the election in the UK on September 23rd or here, I am confused now !!

think again about my last thought above - red ducks like blue ducks will be sucked clean in the vacuum machine ! - sucking starts when interest rates start going higher, everyone pays through his nose one way or the other - everyone elected to office becomes an "Employee" and does what is told .... I will remind you with Tony Blair and his election promises, the Gordon Brown and all the rest ... so those who do good for the country are the ones who do less damage...

I knew you were left wing, judging by your last comment you want rid of National too! Come join the champagne socialist party.

Like it or not but this election will be a vote for change.

Writting on the wall. Only have to read it.

People in general vote against something rather than for it, there is amongst my friends (some of whom voted National) a change in tone, they're not happy with National at all. I struggle with TOP, there's some interesting ideas there, but Gareth Morgan was talking about the way the stupidly rich, including himself, avoid paying taxes and how he's going to make things fairer. In my head I just think, well instead of telling us how you avoid your taxes just f**king well pay them, reminds me a bit of Warren Buffet who keeps saying I'm not taxed enough and yet still uses all of the avoidance schemes available to him. I could have saved myself thousands of dollars tax, I didn't as I don't think it's right to skirt your responsibilities.

My take on and spend. Tax and spend. The immigration tap will stop, and we will return to the exodus that existed during the HC era. The economy will stagnate, interest rates will rise, and government debt will balloon. Those in the state sector will live it up likes there's no tomorrow. We will all get p!55ed off with the waste, vote them out, and National will come back in a landslide. Did I miss anything? Nice

Hardly mate, spot on

Ah, yes, the abysmal performance of the National government over the last 9 years.

Don't think so Kate. NZ has outperformed the pack under JKs stewardship. Look at the accolodades Australia have just heaped on our former PM. Our Australian cousins have been looking across the straight for years with envy. In that time they have been through what, 4, 5 different leaders. Can't wait to have Little, WP, and that benefit fraudster running the nation. Slight sarcasm.

I agree kane02, declaring that National's performance has been abysmal just makes no sense. You really have to wonder what madness such a person making such a claim would want to implement instead. In my mind it puts all their other arguments into serious doubt.

Yeah, it's sheer madness in seeking to clean up our rivers, feed hungry children and lower our world class teen suicide rate.

Kate - 'success' from a National supporters perspective is very shallow and is assessed in terms of capital gains made in their property and share portfolios. The overall state of the country doesn't come into consideration (as you say environment, mental health, poverty). Just like John, if its good for my bank account its got to be good. A very shallow measurement of success.

That's total rubbish IO.

Sure about that - popularity of auction rooms has been a hell of lot higher than dealing with youth suicide - which indicates where our focus has been

Little off topic Kate. I agree our environment has not been managed well for 30 odd years. Just can't see why we have to butcher our economy to manage it. Same with benefit fraud. This is hardly something new. Turei admitted doing this 20 years ago. Nor will she be the last.

But we'll butcher our environment to manage our economy? I'm no greenie, but I do like fishing. And to see what's been happening to a lot of our rivers as a result of excessive diary farming is an embarrassment - and to then project this 100% pure image to the world is a load of bollocks.

It's not just dairying, it's tourism...a whole raft of reasons. And it's a 30 year problem. I do a lot of hiking, and still remember the days when you could drink from most mountain streams. Not now.

Having said that, and traveled the world over. Nz is godzone.

What we have to decide as a nation is do we want to stop growth, and live in a tent. Or embrace globalization, but manage our reseoucre in a sensible fashion. I opt for 2. Most kiwis would agree with this.

Killing the goose to get the golden egg - we should be protecting it with utmost care - it's our point of difference

Good grief Kane02.. are you for real? JK - a con man at best. Public debt up $27 mill per day on his watch. Hosue prices through the roof. The rock star economy built on selling off assets, debt, environmental degradation, massive immigration and underfunding of key public resources.

JK, a man so shallow he changes the honours sytem and then gives himself one - and cons one out of Aus as well.

Got the Aus accolade for his service to Australian banks.

Rastarse you must be living in a different country mate? Public debt grew as a result of the gfc, and chch earthquakes, and is now fallling. This transfer from private, to public insulated nz from the global fallout. Believe you me if we hadn't done that nz would have been smashed. 20%+ unemployment. We would have been a basket case. Public debt is now falling, and we are running surpluses. Read up about it. Or as I suspect just vote green.

Kane02 - out of interest, what's your take on our current levels of private debt?

Depends. If it's utilized to generate a decent yield - then great. If it's in overpriced housing, then "Houston we have a problem" What you have to remember though is we are a nation of small businesses, many of which borrow against the house, and invest in productive assets. I for one have done this. With interest rates so low the productive sector has been expanding at a phenomenal rate, replacing capital, getting the books in order.

Our GDP per capita is reasonable strong, and growing. Although I see boobster disagrees on this point! Haha.

Then we move on to those PI that are leveraged to the hilt. Probably time to see a financial advisor.

As a percentage of nominal disposable income, my understanding is our private debt is the highest its ever been.

How are the books getting in order if the average kiwi is a debt slave and that debt is going to be a drag on our economy in the coming decades?

GDP per capita is going nowhere. Nominal GDP doesn't matter, what matters is per capita. The growth story based on GDP is just BS


What are keys achievements? Political stability, yes. But otherwise, productivity and per capita GDP have gone nowhere. And he has otherwise acquiesced in the biggest credit bubble in NZ history. That makes people feel good for now, but it's fools gold. The money needs to be paid back, and when credit shrinks (as it will) then much of these illusory wealth gains will be lost. Judge John key in 5 years time, after the unwind. See what people think of him then. Not much, will be my guess. He'll be the Beartie Ahern of the South Pacific. People will laugh at him in the street.

Boobster, the bubble is not a phenomen just localized to nz. If you think JK masterminded it, then you're deluded. If you want to apportion blame, level it at the greed of PI, the prepubescent kid aproving a mortgage application, for an overpriced AKL bungalow, and our iditiotic RBNZ, that has allowed our nation to be controlled from the boardrooms in Oz. If people have paid ridiculous amounts for houses, borrowed shite loads to do so, and prices fall out from under them, they have no one else to blame except themselves.

I am not saying he caused it. But he acquiesced in it, he liked it, he was basically a cheer leader for it ("see how successful and wealthy we are") and he did this because it was politically expedient as it gave people that warm fuzzy feeling. He said on a number of occasions that he liked house prices going up, but not by too much. At no point has he made any public statement about the level of debt being racked up or the danger it poses to our financial system. He knows better, but he just sold his soul to get the votes that come from rising house prices. And in the end this thing just blew totally out of control. At no time has he given any jawbone time to saying what needed to be said. Total failure of leadership. And if things really do blow up here history will judge him very harshly for it.

That's politics for you bobster. I don't know you from a bar of soap, but what I can say is that banking, and finance is linked to confidence. JK was/is a confident chap, he exudes confidence. The masses like that, and the markets like that. Now that he's gone talk is of bubbles, calamity blah blah. What's changed? Nothing. Nothing but sentiment. I just don't buy your logic that it all JKs fault. Sorry that's bollocks.

The exodus is not the option it was a few years ago, given that countries that we tended to hop off to, have put restrictions or disincentives in place since then.

So just the desirable ones will join the next exodus as all the undesirables get blocked by restrictions?

already happening in Australia and England for kiwis, if you are highly skilled and can command high remuneration entry and the ability to stay long term is much easier

It's called protecting ones patch.

So just the desirable ones will join the next exodus as all the undesirables get blocked by restrictions?

Kane is that not our normal cycle, we vote one mob in they cut everything, they pi55 us off after a period as the cuts start to affect services vote them out.
next mob comes in spends to get services back, but does not stop instead starts funding cr@p projects, they pi55 us off vote them out
repeat every 2-3 cycles

Yep, that's just what I said sharetrader.

This idea of reducing inequality is fundamentally good , but Labour is carrying on as if inequality and poverty its a new phenomenon.

Even the Bible which is a few thousand years old tells us the poor will always be with us.

For as long as I can recall Auckland has had suburbs where the wealthy lived such as Remuera Herne Bay and Parnell , and there were places like Mt Albert where there were working folk and places where people on welfare lived .

Homelessness in Auckland is a direct result of immigration , the migrants often find work due to their skills and will pay more to rent houses that poorer folk or beneficiaries would normally rent, and this has the effect of pushing out the most vulnerable ............. and Housing New Zealand simply does not have enough houses for them

There were always people on welfare , and its never been enough for a good life , and always been insufficient to be comfortable .

While the wealthy seem to have become wealthier its nothing like Australia or the US where the wealthy are so rich its unbelievable , and the poor are so poor its a disgrace.

Our social welfare system ensures that no one starves and and there is accommodation for everyone ( even if that roof is not in Auckland ) .

Instead we often see people on welfare making bad choices buying clothing on tick from hawker trucks , borrowing money from Instant Finance and even loan sharks, using Pokey machines and drinking excessively .

Two things, Boatie. I agree with a decent amount of what you say, but:

1. Our help for the poor does fluctuate over time. I seem to recall the outgoing Children's Commissioner saying that care for impoverished children now is way less than it was in John Key's day. We've also seen an almost adversarial focus developing over the last nine years, instead of one of advocacy - a massive drive to kick people off benefits (up to and including KPIs around kicking people off benefits).

2. I don't think the characterisation in your last paragraph is fair. Having worked in poverty alleviation in the past that sort of thing is usual a desparate last resort (hawkers and finance companies).

I definitely think we're a bit off track at the moment with the way we're fostering greater inequality and less social mobility. I'm concerned we're measuring performance in WINZ based on the wrong things, and we're not effectively growing people out of poverty into independence - even the large number of them for whom this is their greatest desire.

Agree that immigration of low wage workers can't be helping the ones already here much.

Some stories of dealing with WINZ:

I was a homeless 17 year old living in a car in Auckland city with two other people. We'd been kicked out of our flat by our crazy landlord. I was working two jobs and making enough money for rent, but not enough for bond on a house.

WINZ refused to help me because:
- I couldn't ring for an appointment because I didn't have a landline
- I didn't qualify for independent youth benefit because I didn't have an address
- I worked at burger King "full time" even though my hours were 11 per week
- I was a "self employed" pizza hut driver earning 3.50 per delivery on withholding tax
- I had a partner who had a studylink allowance

Without a winz number, I couldn't get a community services card. Without a card we couldn't visit the free city mission doctor, get a food grant, even the sallies refused to give us a food box. We had to resort to stealing and begging on the street. It was the lowest I have ever been. I cried in the Henderson office begging them for food money. Security threw us out because we didn't have an appointment. We begged a couch off the op shop on the main road and they took pity on us and gave us a few free blankets. I rented a freezing garage in ranui with my mate and took a third job, maxed out our student accounts and visa cards and scrapped the car. Winter was f**king HARD.

I'm 30 now, and still paying for all the stupid shit I had to do, and now I have a bankruptcy on my record. F**k winz.


Lady at Manukau WINZ. Moved back from Aus to NZ to help my family. Was unemployed for 1 month before finding a job. Anyway, I went to the job seminar and it was honestly something out of a Jonah From Tonga skit. Lady spent 1 hour telling a room full of young poly people how they're a burden on society (not me reading between the lines, actual quotes) and that if they have kids they will kill New Zealand society. She was an Indian immigrant and let us know that the reason we can't find jobs is because our work ethic is crap and her people come here to take jobs because their work ethic is better. I was almost about to laugh in her face...only thing stopping me was looking around the room and seeing the sadness/despair of the words she was saying. Everyone in the room had a look of complete sh*t on them and it made realize there's something really f**ked up going on at WINZ. She made it her mission to make everyone feel like trash for being there.

Despite coming from decile 1 South Auckland I was fortunate enough to beat the odds, get a degree and secure myself employment no matter where I go. It didn't affect me in the slightest. To her I was just one of many young Polynesians in the group but I knew what she was saying was crap.

She started drawing diagrams about how dropping out at 15 leads to addicted to drugs at 16. By the time you hit 18 you have a kid from a one night stand. By the time you hit 20 you have two kids to two different partners and you hate yourself/become depressed. You get a medical certificate from a GP and you're set for life on single mothers benefit and disabilities allowance. You stay depressed into your mid 20's and ruin your whole chances of finding a job and you ruin your own life and become a burden on society. She then said we're lucky we live in NZ where this bullsh*t is tolerated, if we done this in China or India we would be dead. This is not me making stuff up, this is her 'being real and telling it how it is'.

Not once did she stop to address anybody in that room as actually people...only the worst possible stereotype that you can imagine. Never thought for a second that somebody is an ambitious person in that room who just needs a months help w food, rent, travel money until they can get going again. She done her best to make sure everyone in that room felt like losers for being there. The saddest thing is for a lot of people it works.

After all that jumping between hoops I ended up with 2 weeks stand down and the first cent I saw was 6 weeks after I first submitted the application online. 2 weeks later I started my first day at a full time job


I was quite surprised at the almost contemptuous attitudes WINZ had towards job seekers. One actually said to us as a group If you think it's going to be easy collecting a check and not working, it's not. Our job is to make it easier for you to get a job than to stay on the dole. So they are basically promising to us that they will make being on the dole annoying, so we don't come to enjoy it too much.

We had to apply to 20 jobs 3 times a week. In person, at WINZ. The travel costs were not insignificant, since I budgeted that after food ($80/wk for 2 adults and a toddler) and rent costs we had $9 left over from the benefit. 60 jobs a week we had to apply for. Now, to actually apply for a real job would take me researching the company for say, a hour, then spending another hour crafting a cover letter and tailoring my resume to appeal to that employer. There's no way in hell I could do that for 60 job applications a week. So I was forced to apply for a whole bunch of jobs as a factory foreman or security guard where they didn't want me.

Now I can tell you that when I worked in poverty alleviation we managed to break the cycle for a good number of people. But we NEVER would have used methods like the above - people already feel discouraged, powerless, helpless and unable to achieve...the above will not change that at all.

To have obtained a bankruptcy as opposed to a NAP you would have had to owe more than $40,000. You blame that on WINZ?

Really, that's what you choose to pick from the above? You find it unfathomable that a person homeless at 17 could ever get indebted up to $40k between the ages of 17 and 30? Not to mention the person may be using a more generic term than NAP so it's easier for people to understand.

That wooshing sound is solid critical analysis flying far above your head.

Still being under the cloud of an NAP implies that the NAP occurred in the last 3 years if memory serves ( a quick google search shows that a NAP is for debt up to $47,000). This means that the person above only entered the NAP when (s)he was 27. What is the relevance of the described interaction with WINZ 10 years prior when (s)he was 17? Incidentally the city mission will let you use their address for WINZ purposes as well as their landline to make a WINZ appointment if you ask nicely and they believe you to be in genuine hardship. When I went on the dole (for a few weeks) about 6 years ago (between finishing Uni and starting my first job), the people there were very helpful. Even if they had not been helpful at all, I highly doubt that my interaction with them would affect me today. In fact I recall thinking that the dole was way too much even back then, I think the dole money bought me my first smartphone, and a very nice computer!

What is the relevance of the described interaction with WINZ 10 years prior when (s)he was 17?

Because it's likely a hard road from homeless poverty at 17 to getting your life together without decent help?

And perhaps the City Mission has made that allowance because of issues people had in the past re lacking an address. Did it 13 years ago, for example?

"This idea of reducing inequality is fundamentally good" - why is that really ?

Extreme comes to mind weeks out from the election Labour launchs it's TAX AND SPEND policy. Along with this the clear dislike between LAB-NZF, NZF-GREENS and the poor LAB-GREENS relationship. Not forgetting the Greens co-leader admitting being a welfare fraud !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The potential instabilty of this mix along with the TAX AND SPEND attitude scares me.
National like all governments are far from perfect but look sensible and stable to get my vote.
I would imagine if LAB/NZF/GREENS were to get into government it would only last one term.
WP nothing than a career politician the opposite to Key.

I may well be wrong here, but I reckon there's going to be something about Paula Bennett revealed, hence why Metiria's come out with her mea culpa moment. Someone mentioned it here Paula was quite evasive when it came to her history of welfare, never "deliberately" etc...

Edit - either that or Metiria got wind of the story breaking before she had a say, so front-footed it.

Yea, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more heat on PB over her alleged benefit affairs.
What I do know is that a team of lawyers were sent in Colin Craig style to quell any talk of the allegations.

Metiria's admission had a touch of the rope a dope about it, and Paula's statement seemed to be very carefully worded, as though scripted by a PR firm in damage control mode. The use of the word deliberately I found quite telling, it allows for legal wriggle room, i.e. you would have to prove it was deliberate.

Yes, I found Paula's statement totally, totally perverse. So she accidentally lied. Where do they get these lines? Look forward to her joining Todd at the Pig & Whistle.

I'm guessing it might be something along the lines of "I forgot to inform them of a couple of changes in circumstance".

As the McCain advert, Labour, you have done it again.
Although, National aint done too badly at all, I was thinking lately, may be its worth a try to see what a change could do. But not any more, after their latest plan to tax, spend and be merry. The only thing good here is "be merry". I have no problem in handing out to the the needy and the ones in genuine need. Let me tell you why I will not buy this Labours new gig and stick with National.
Taxing large and spending large can only lead to disaster. Their plan calls for damaging accomodation providers businesses. Most property investors are long term "buy and hold investors" providing lodging to tenants in need. Initially they might make a loss, like any new business establishing in the early years, which eventually leads to a positive cash flow business- by hitting these very people with the same hammer as you pretend to be hitting only the speculators might get you some cheap votes. With 40% investors money required to enter the market and strict lending criteria, already in place,is all thats needed -- no need to tax large and spend large. People know better how and where to spend. Go National Go.

Funnily enough, this is not particularly large spending relative to the overall government spend at all. It's successfully cast as massive spending, but it's not.

Implementing a 'Google Tax' on multinationals. I would like to understand just how they will implement a tax on Google for example without Google saying no and pulling out of NZ.

This is such a tiny country the lost revenue would barely register in Google. The reality is NZ needs Google more than Google needs NZ.


NZ does not need Google - and - Google would have great difficulty withstanding the global stain if it pulled out of NZ and NZ broadcast to the world why Google was pulling out

Believe me - it would blow up in Google's face - NZ has the stronger hand - stronger than it realises

AU is underway with its Google Tax

Watch how many multi-national parasites don't pull out but stick around

But like that time we tried to force them to release data to us? Something to do with the GCSB ?

Of the extra 7.9 billion for Health over the next 4 years, 1 billion should be recovered from overseas visitors whose costs are not currently being recovered by the health sector. Labour needs to actively support the sector by insisting on border screening of travel insurance details and matching this against health care provided. Health should not be subsidising the insurance industry at taxpayers expense. The current payment health receives in the funding envelope for bad debts written off is only scratching the surface of the true cost

I do commend "Interest" for its excellent coverage of this , and other parties policies. The mainstream media seems otherwise engaged, with anything that can remotely justify putting sexual innuendo in the headline as click bait.

Nationals proposed tax cuts mean those in the $22,000 bracket will get a $10.77 tax reduction a week, those on $52,000 will get $20.38. And yet Labour say these tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. What am I missing here?
And now the CTU has come out supporting Labours policy including revoking these tax cuts.
I would have thought the CTU would support policy that meant more money in workers pockets?
Makes me wonder are unions really for the workers or for themselves?

Hey - you've given me an idea delboy . Why dont 100 of us pool our $20.00 together and fund a much needed doctor? radical I know, but it might just work.